Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[Mr. Brownstone]

Come on, thoughts on the content and facts in that article?

I stopped at Andrea Vance

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

@Mr. Brownstone @defensivebomb @wizard of Tauranga

Given the high prevalence of attacks on, well, me, instead of addressing the points of concern, how about some thoughts on this very clear linking to far right economic thinktanks and the ACT party, and the regulatory standards bill?

How do you morally feel about New Zealand being sold off?

And wiz? You accuse me of disinformation all the time, including privatisation. Guess what? They're privatising New Zealand's health system as we speak. It's fact. It's been fact for the entire history of neoliberalism in this country.

Only interested in genuine thoughts on the facts of the article which are very clearly laid out.

Before we start, do you accept all sides have outside influence affecting policy?

Unions? He Puaua? Transnational Institute (TNI), Global Justice Now, Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, etc.

I’m not saying any sides are right or wrong, just highlighting all parties will look to international best practice.

And ultimately like when Labour went to far left, the voters decide what’s acceptable and the opposite party reverses bad policy (eg Labours pledged to cancel the regulatory standard bill).

Don’t see it as a big issue really… left will draw from international left; right will draw from international right

Ps I find unions, who clearly demand employee and pro union law changes to be the biggest breach of conflict of interest.

 

[MaybeTop8]

I stopped at Andrea Vance

Well quite. Disappointing really, because it provides vital context and factual information to a brand of politics that will only enrich the wealthy and help dismantle our democracy.

It's an opportunity for you to see where a perspective that may put into context your own beliefs, if you are willing.

Otherwise it's circular.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

@Mr. Brownstone @defensivebomb @wizard of Tauranga

Given the high prevalence of attacks on, well, me, instead of addressing the points of concern, how about some thoughts on this very clear linking to far right economic thinktanks and the ACT party, and the regulatory standards bill?

How do you morally feel about New Zealand being sold off?

And wiz? You accuse me of disinformation all the time, including privatisation. Guess what? They're privatising New Zealand's health system as we speak. It's fact. It's been fact for the entire history of neoliberalism in this country.

Only interested in genuine thoughts on the facts of the article which are very clearly laid out.

I’m actually with you on that the majority of health and education need to be govt owned. But a small amount to keep them honest and pick up the slack is not a bad thing.

I don’t believe we can run them well privately, need the scale, and can’t generate competition if private.

Private only works with competition.

Then again, as long as it gets done and we get a better service I don’t really care how they achieve it. If the public system can’t achieve it then we must change.

The ultimate is a strong public system that operates and challenges itself to run really efficiently almost like a private business under public ownership. Unfortunately we don’t have that in NZ.

 

[MaybeTop8]

Before we start, do you accept all sides have outside influence affecting policy?

Unions? He Puaua? Transnational Institute (TNI), Global Justice Now, Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, etc.

I’m not saying any sides are right or wrong, just highlighting all parties will look to international best practice.

And ultimately like when Labour went to far left, the voters decide what’s acceptable and the opposite party reverses bad policy (eg Labours pledged to cancel the regulatory standard bill).

Don’t see it as a big issue really… left will draw from international left; right will draw from international right

Ps I find unions, who clearly demand employee and pro union law changes to be the biggest breach of conflict of interest.

Wiz, I'll say this once, 'cos I understand a lot of our interactions are based on trolling, and mostly (jiz of small donger aside , and maybe I am your mother in law ) not on anything factual, and I'm really not interested in circular dead ends.

But surely. Surely. You must recognise there isn't parity and hasn't been parity, for a long, long, long time.

Look around you. The right, your right, the fascist right, the hard right, the authoritarian right, is everywhere. I accept that.

Your mob have won, for now. And they're doing untold damage.

 

[MaybeTop8]

I’m actually with you on that the majority of health and education need to be govt owned. But a small amount to keep them honest and pick up the slack is not a bad thing.

I don’t believe we can run them well privately, need the scale, and can’t generate competition if private.

Private only works with competition.

Then again, as long as it gets done and we get a better service I don’t really care how they achieve it. If the public system can’t achieve it then we must change.

The ultimate is a strong public system that operates and challenges itself to run really efficiently almost like a private business under public ownership. Unfortunately we don’t have that in NZ.

Surprisingly agree here except....the only reason the public system can't achieve it is through underfunding and mismanagement. And that's been deliberate.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Well quite. Disappointing really, because it provides vital context and factual information to a brand of politics that will only enrich the wealthy and help dismantle our democracy.

It's an opportunity for you to see where a perspective that may put into context your own beliefs, if you are willing.

Otherwise it's circular.

Jokes aside I’ll read it later, need to spend at least some of the afternoon working

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Look around you. The right, your right, the fascist right, the hard right, the authoritarian right, is everywhere. I accept that.

In the short term nothing much changes but in the long term we have massive change.

Don’t sweat the small stuff now. The left will reverse all the worst stuff when they get back in.

I’m with you with concerns about where the world heading. How one income used to support a family with 6 kids and now we struggle with 2 incomes and 2 kids.

But I feel it’s a lot more than neoliberalism and we have a lot of positive benefits (better technology, healthcare, standard of living, lifespan, lower poverty, etc)

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

@Mr. Brownstone @defensivebomb @wizard of Tauranga

Given the high prevalence of attacks on, well, me, instead of addressing the points of concern, how about some thoughts on this very clear linking to far right economic thinktanks and the ACT party, and the regulatory standards bill?

How do you morally feel about New Zealand being sold off?

And wiz? You accuse me of disinformation all the time, including privatisation. Guess what? They're privatising New Zealand's health system as we speak. It's fact. It's been fact for the entire history of neoliberalism in this country.

Only interested in genuine thoughts on the facts of the article which are very clearly laid out.

I believe National is currently centre Right - pro-business, conservative on fiscal matters, moderate on social issues.

ACT is classic libertarian (strong focus on individual freedoms, deregulation, low taxes)

NZ First is very populist (conservative on immigration, culturally nationalist, centrist on economics).

Claims of far right is just left spin. I can provide 10x more examples of policies fitting into the above categories than the odd policy that could be far right.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

I'm not really liking our choices for next year.... the centre-right propped up by these guys

ACT leader blames identity politics, previous government for setting NZ 'against each other'

But supporters are calling on their party to stick to its values as it takes stock.

www.rnz.co.nz

Or the centre-left propped up by these guys (I've included the whole article only because it's behind the Herald's paywall)

Te Pāti Māori fails again to file financial documents on time despite police warning​

Te Pāti Māori has again failed to file its audited financial statements on time, despite being formally warned by police last year.

It’s also yet to provide the Electoral Commission with an audit report for last year’s financial statement.

Labour has also missed a deadline. It provided the commission with its financial statements on time, but without an audit report. The commission says it is satisfied with the reasons the opposition party has provided for the delay.

According to the Electoral Commission, registered political parties must file financial statements each year. These lay out the parties’ income, expenses and surplus or deficit as well as a variety of other details about their financial performance.

The deadline for filing these documents varies between different parties, but for many – including National, Act, Labour and Te Pāti Māori - the Electoral Commission required the statements by June 30, 2025.

The commission’s website currently shows most parties met the deadline, but Te Pāti Māori’s documents are labelled “not yet received”.

Kristina Temel, the Electoral Commission’s manager for legal, regulation and policy, told the Herald it was following up with Te Pāti Māori about its compliance.

“Te Pāti Māori has not yet filed financial statements or an audit report but has told the Commission they are being prepared and will be filed soon,” said Temel.

“They have also informed us that the outstanding audit report for last year’s financial statements will be filed at the same time.”

The Electoral Commission last year referred Te Pāti Māori to the police after it failed to file its previous annual financial statements. The document was eventually received, but was missing information, including the audit report.

Police in December formally warned the party, though the financial statements still do not have an audit report attached.

Te Pāti Māori was approached for comment, but did not respond. Its political leaders, Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer have previously refused to comment on what they have referred to as a party issue.

The commission’s website shows Labour filed its statements by June 30, but an audit report had not been received. It is also following up with Labour.

“Labour has not filed an audit report for its financial statements,” said Temel.

“The party contacted us before 30 June to advise that its audit report is taking longer than expected and at this stage we are satisfied with the reasons they and their auditor have given.”

Leader Chris Hipkins on Tuesday referred the matter to the party.

Rob Salmond, Labour’s general secretary told the Herald: “Labour is continuing to work with our audit partners as we transition to a new set of accounting practices.

“We are in the late stages of this process,” he said.

Temel said the commission can refer matters to the police if compliance “is not reached”.

No decisions had been made about any referrals “at this point”.

“Under section 210J of the Electoral Act, it is an offence for a party secretary to file a financial statement late or fail to file a financial statement without reasonable excuse.”

Te Pāti Māori fails again to file financial documents on time

The Electoral Commission says no decisions about referrals to police have been made.

www.nzherald.co.nz

Then I'm wondering what's worse.... ACT wanting an unelected group to go through all the Parliamentary Acts to see if they complies with their regulation reduction bill or the Maori Party wanting to have an unelected person making sure all Acts comply with their version of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Either seems an attack on democracy as far as I'm concerned.

TOPP or Brand Winnie looking more appealing everyday!!!!

Do as I say and not as I do.
This is shocking. They should be banned from parliament until they comply.

We used to get govt funding and have it audited every year and we had real consequences if we didn’t do them.

What’s the consequences for this basic requirement?

Smells of corruption to me… unbelievable.

 

[MaybeTop8]

Their right to host who they want. And I realise this is a press release from a far left group. But they're correct in who the ACT invited speaker is.

ACT Party To Host White Genocide Conspiracy Theorist As 2025 Party Rally Keynote Speaker

“ACT describes James Lindsay in vague statements because they know that most people in Aotearoa would reject the dangerous, far-right and frankly weird views he propagates,” said Anne Campbell of Pōneke Anti-Fascist Coalition.

www.scoop.co.nz

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Their right to host who they want. And I realise this is a press release from a far left group. But they're correct in who the ACT invited speaker is.

ACT Party To Host White Genocide Conspiracy Theorist As 2025 Party Rally Keynote Speaker

“ACT describes James Lindsay in vague statements because they know that most people in Aotearoa would reject the dangerous, far-right and frankly weird views he propagates,” said Anne Campbell of Pōneke Anti-Fascist Coalition.

www.scoop.co.nz

I asked chat GPT ‘who is James Lindsay?’ Doesn’t say anything about the claims Scoop is trying to smear him with he is outspoken about cancel culture and deplatforming and here we are… Can see why the left would try to cancel him though as he challenges thinking:

James A. Lindsay is an American mathematician turned author and cultural critic, best known for his outspoken opposition to critical theory–informed movements, especially critical race theory (CRT), postmodernism, and what he calls “applied postmodernism” or “Social Justice ideology.”

---

Main Topics Lindsay Covers​

1. Critique of Critical Theory and CRT

• He highlights how critical theory evolved from Marxist roots (via the Frankfurt School) and morphed into modern CRT, framing race and power in a way he argues fuels grievance and identity-based activism rather than objective analysis The California Review+8Wikipedia+8New Discourses+8Pacific Legal Foundation.
• Through books like Cynical Theories (co-authored with Helen Pluckrose) and Race Marxism, Lindsay argues these frameworks act like totalizing belief systems replacing Marxist class struggle with racial and gender conflictsAmazon UK+12Wikipedia+12authortomharper.com+12.

2. Grievance Studies Hoax

• In 2017–2018, he collaborated with Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose to expose weak peer review in “grievance studies” fields by submitting satirical papers, sparking debate about academic rigorWikipedia+1Wikipedia+1.

3. Postmodernism, Identity Politics, and Woke Activism

• He critiques “applied postmodernism,” where theory evolves into ideology, and practices like critical pedagogy and corporate ESG are viewed as ideological tools The Common Sense Network+4Wikipedia+4Wikipedia+4.
• Lindsay warns that CRT and similar doctrines are becoming woven into law, education, and business, asserting they seek systemic change, not just equality tllp.org+15authortomharper.com+15The Epoch Times+15.

4. Broader Cultural Criticism

• He connects critical theory to other modern phenomena: “cancel culture,” deplatforming, “woke” corporate policies, ESG, and what he labels conspiracies like “Cultural Marxism” .

5. Advocacy for Classical Liberalism & Open Dialogue

• Lindsay frames himself as a defender of free speech, reasoned debate, and Enlightenment liberal values. He urges resisting ideological conformity in academia and society authortomharper.com+14New Discourses+14Swaney Group+14.

---

Major Works​

Title	Co‑author(s)	Focus
Cynical Theories (2020)	Helen Pluckrose	Broad critique of applied postmodernism/CRTWikipedia+15Wikipedia+15aneighborschoice.com+15
Race Marxism (2022)	—	Deep dive into CRT as modern Marxist-style ideology
How to Have Impossible Conversations (2019)	Peter Boghossian	Guide to civil discourse across ideological divides

---

🛠 Platforms & Public Engagement​

• Founder of New Discourses, a platform critiquing “woke” ideology .
• Frequent guest on Joe Rogan, Glenn Beck, Fox News, NPR, and other media KERO 23 ABC News Bakersfield.
• Participated in the “grievance studies” hoax, aiming to provoke reforms in academia The California Review+2Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2.

---

Overall Perspective​

Lindsay positions himself as a challenge to intellectual orthodoxy—in academia, media, and corporate culture. He contends that movements centered around race, gender, and identity have shifted from scholarship to ideology, undermining liberal values, free expression, and objective reasoning. Whether one agrees or not, he is a central voice in debates over the role of critical theory in modern institutions.

 

[MaybeTop8]

I asked chat GPT ‘who is James Lindsay?’ Doesn’t say anything about the claims Scoop is trying to smear him with he is outspoken about Vance culture and here we are… Can see why the left would try to cancel him though as he challenges thinking:

James A. Lindsay is an American mathematician turned author and cultural critic, best known for his outspoken opposition to critical theory–informed movements, especially critical race theory (CRT), postmodernism, and what he calls “applied postmodernism” or “Social Justice ideology.”

---

Main Topics Lindsay Covers​

1. Critique of Critical Theory and CRT

• He highlights how critical theory evolved from Marxist roots (via the Frankfurt School) and morphed into modern CRT, framing race and power in a way he argues fuels grievance and identity-based activism rather than objective analysis The California Review+8Wikipedia+8New Discourses+8Pacific Legal Foundation.
• Through books like Cynical Theories (co-authored with Helen Pluckrose) and Race Marxism, Lindsay argues these frameworks act like totalizing belief systems replacing Marxist class struggle with racial and gender conflictsAmazon UK+12Wikipedia+12authortomharper.com+12.

2. Grievance Studies Hoax

• In 2017–2018, he collaborated with Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose to expose weak peer review in “grievance studies” fields by submitting satirical papers, sparking debate about academic rigorWikipedia+1Wikipedia+1.

3. Postmodernism, Identity Politics, and Woke Activism

• He critiques “applied postmodernism,” where theory evolves into ideology, and practices like critical pedagogy and corporate ESG are viewed as ideological tools The Common Sense Network+4Wikipedia+4Wikipedia+4.
• Lindsay warns that CRT and similar doctrines are becoming woven into law, education, and business, asserting they seek systemic change, not just equality tllp.org+15authortomharper.com+15The Epoch Times+15.

4. Broader Cultural Criticism

• He connects critical theory to other modern phenomena: “cancel culture,” deplatforming, “woke” corporate policies, ESG, and what he labels conspiracies like “Cultural Marxism” .

5. Advocacy for Classical Liberalism & Open Dialogue

• Lindsay frames himself as a defender of free speech, reasoned debate, and Enlightenment liberal values. He urges resisting ideological conformity in academia and society authortomharper.com+14New Discourses+14Swaney Group+14.

---

Major Works​

Title	Co‑author(s)	Focus
Cynical Theories (2020)	Helen Pluckrose	Broad critique of applied postmodernism/CRTWikipedia+15Wikipedia+15aneighborschoice.com+15
Race Marxism (2022)	—	Deep dive into CRT as modern Marxist-style ideology
How to Have Impossible Conversations (2019)	Peter Boghossian	Guide to civil discourse across ideological divides

---

🛠 Platforms & Public Engagement​

• Founder of New Discourses, a platform critiquing “woke” ideology .
• Frequent guest on Joe Rogan, Glenn Beck, Fox News, NPR, and other media KERO 23 ABC News Bakersfield.
• Participated in the “grievance studies” hoax, aiming to provoke reforms in academia The California Review+2Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2.

---

Overall Perspective​

Lindsay positions himself as a challenge to intellectual orthodoxy—in academia, media, and corporate culture. He contends that movements centered around race, gender, and identity have shifted from scholarship to ideology, undermining liberal values, free expression, and objective reasoning. Whether one agrees or not, he is a central voice in debates over the role of critical theory in modern institutions.

In other words, a hard right racist bigot. End of story.

And that's ACT's guest speaker.

So, if you think this is moderate, that's our baseline wiz.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

In other words, a hard right racist bigot. End of story.

And that's ACT's guest speaker.

So, if you think this is moderate, that's our baseline wiz.

As chat gpt surmises:

Lindsay positions himself as a challenge to intellectual orthodoxy—in academia, media, and corporate culture. He contends that movements centered around race, gender, and identity have shifted from scholarship to ideology, undermining liberal values, free expression, and objective reasoning. Whether one agrees or not, he is a central voice in debates over the role of critical theory in modern institutions.

Don’t fear a different opinion man. It’s not being a racist bigot because you don’t agree with him

 

[MaybeTop8]

As chat gpt surmises:

Lindsay positions himself as a challenge to intellectual orthodoxy—in academia, media, and corporate culture. He contends that movements centered around race, gender, and identity have shifted from scholarship to ideology, undermining liberal values, free expression, and objective reasoning. Whether one agrees or not, he is a central voice in debates over the role of critical theory in modern institutions.

Don’t fear a different opinion man. It’s not being a racist bigot because you don’t agree with him

Jaysis. He is a racist bigot, hard right. That's who he is. That's who act is.

Nothing more to say really.

All parties involved, human and political, hard right.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Jaysis. He is a racist bigot, hard right. That's who he is. That's who act is.

Nothing more to say really.

All parties involved, human and political, hard right.

Honestly never heard of him and I trust Chat GPT’s moderate assessment over a biased left media rabbit holes attempt at cancel culture…

Honestly couldn’t care personally. You however seem fixated on ACT and attacking them at every opportunity

Nothing more to say really.

 

[defensivebomb]

@Mr. Brownstone @defensivebomb @wizard of Tauranga

Given the high prevalence of attacks on, well, me, instead of addressing the points of concern, how about some thoughts on this very clear linking to far right economic thinktanks and the ACT party, and the regulatory standards bill?

How do you morally feel about New Zealand being sold off?

And wiz? You accuse me of disinformation all the time, including privatisation. Guess what? They're privatising New Zealand's health system as we speak. It's fact. It's been fact for the entire history of neoliberalism in this country.

Only interested in genuine thoughts on the facts of the article which are very clearly laid out.

To be honest, I haven’t looked into Act’s bill. Seymour and his cronies don’t represent me and if the bill died, I wouldn’t shed a tear. I’m not a fan of his, though I am sometimes a fan of what he says

I appreciate that he is (apparently) removing some of the bureaucracy in principle, but i haven’t read any of his bill.

Is NZ being sold off? That’s something that should probably be outright demonstrated, for me to think about and have an opinion of. There is probably a range of ownership models that are appropriate for each asset

 

[Noitall]

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

Seymour going rogue? Both coalition partners have expressed their dismay

 

[defensivebomb]

@MaybeTop8 - sorry if it seems like I attack you (certainly don’t intend to). I appreciate your constructive angle on things

 

[MaybeTop8]

@MaybeTop8 - sorry if it seems like I attack you (certainly don’t intend to). I appreciate your constructive angle on things

Thanks d bomb it was slightly tongue in cheek but keen to get more context and thought about some of this stuff without circular dead endd. My regulars are certainly not my echo chamber. It's good to understand others in a relative way, and there's certainly some distance here